Jane Eyre
discussion
Why didn't Mr. Rochester send Bertha to an institution?
date
newest »
newest »
Sandy wrote: "I reckon if there were no racist and misogynistic descriptions and depictions, you would love the stories more? :)"Well, personally, I tend to read these things with a different mindset. Sure, the back of my head sometimes whispers "oops, that wasn't nice...", but it depends on the context of the author at the moment it was written. However... I tend to admire some authors who got ahead of their times and criticized this way of thinking.
In fact... from a certain point of view, Jane Eyre was a pretty "feminist" woman, for her times.
Sandy wrote: "Annemarie wrote: "I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out yet, please excuse me if I'm being redundant, but the character is loosely (and I mean VERY LOOSELY) based on William Makepeace Thackeray, ..."@Sandy - No problem. I remember a prof, Lisa Gim, mentioning it in class once (this was a million years ago when I was an undergrad) and then I found the info later, I think Gaskell mentions it in her biography, but don't quote me.
Laura wrote: "Sandy wrote: "I reckon if there were no racist and misogynistic descriptions and depictions, you would love the stories more? :)"Well, personally, I tend to read these things with a different min..."
@Laura - Jane is definitely a character you can read as a feminist, that entire scene "I am no bird, I am a free person with a will to leave you and I will do so now" (I just botched that quote). She's clearly exerting a will that goes above and beyond agency.
Also, the book seems to say something of the dignity of working class folk. Bronte makes a differentiation of Jane's status as employee and not servant. Then Jane goes to help build up a school of children of factory workers. It would be interesting if the book had a chapter of Jane visiting the needle factory.
gertt wrote: "Do you really think Bertha would have been treated with respect and patience in an Asylum? Or that Rochester could have kept her in the main house? "No, Jane Eyre wasn't treated well at Lowood, Bertha couldn't be treated very well in an institution either.
As I said before, still Lowood was a better place for Jane. There were Helen and Miss Temple, why couldn't Bertha meet her Helen and Miss Temple?
Actually, my point is Mr. Rochester had locked her up for 15 years in an attic. Even prisoners are allowed out for a few minutes a day?
Part of the problem is that, because Bronte was no psychiatrist, Bertha's mental illness is not a very specific one. We have really no clue what she had and, therefore, we can't possibly know if a different treatment from the beginning would have changed the course of her symptoms and behavior. Nowadays, some authors do a lot of research to try to be accurate in certain details (history, medicine, etc.), but Bronte was more about the story. She probably didn't know much about the case in which she based her novel and she improvised.
gertt wrote: "As for taking..."Maybe a leash and some treats. I watched this show called "It's me or the dog" and that lady used a clicker and it was really effective... I mean, uhm, no.
Renee wrote: "Been watching Salem? http://new-films.biz/uploads/posts/20..."Clicked on the link and literally went "gha!" Yikes that show. I've seen clips on The Wil Wheaton project but WTF. I'm from Massachusetts... man the shit they forget to mention in history class.
The show is good, very different twists to it, and different perspectives. But it's intense.
Renee wrote: "The show is good, very different twists to it, and different perspectives. But it's intense."
I'll have to check it out. Wheaton kind of makes fun of it, but that's his deal. The WWP is pretty funny. Like the Soup but for Geeks.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Yes they are Sandy. They could have taken her for a little walk every day. I mean c'mon! Her mental illness seems greatly exaggerated I think. I'm sure there will be responses like, without meds some people foam at the mouth and growl but I think Bertha would do much less growling with some daily sunshine and exercise. "Given that Mr. Rochester dared invite his friends to Thornfield to have a big party, he supposed Bertha could be quiet and normal for several days (although were I Mr. Rochester, I wouldn't risk it!), Bertha's condition wasn't too bad to take a walk some time? But the secret would be discovered of course. :)
I don't know how Bertha had been treated before her marriage, but I don't think she had been locked up like this. Her brother didn't expect she became so violent.
Didn't the book describe her condition as not being apparent before the marriage, and then manifesting afterward, catching Rochester off-guard as the family bent to insanity had been hidden from him?We now know that bipolar/schizophrenia and many other psychosis manifest differently and at different times, and that events, hormones, etc. can trigger the onset of severe symptoms.
gertt wrote: "Because the story wasn't about Bertha, it was about Jane. Bertha was simply an obstacle in Jane's path to happiness."Or the author just wanted to invent the story like this;
or the time and culture are different;
or I just like it.
They explain everything. :p
So, Charlotte Bronte presented an obstacle in the story that is entirely credible and plausible in its time.
Bear in mind . . . Bertha is not a real person.
Nor is Rochester, or Jane, or anyone in the story.
Renee wrote: "Bear in mind . . . Bertha is not a real person.
Nor is Rochester, or Jane, or anyone in the story."
Then it would be very hard for me to understand Rochester and Jane's love, of human being. lol. Anyway, just kidding.
If you accept the axiom that true love is also fictional . . . ;-)
Renee wrote: "If you accept the axiom that true love is also fictional . . . ;-)"Wow, sad but true... :(
Look it up. In Victorian times they were still treating mental illness with cold baths. We moderns cannot imagine how primitive, how -nasty-, medical treatment was in that time. I'm researching for a novel. (Masturbation was an illness too. I read the other day of a guy in the 1840s self-medicating himself for it. It involved caustic (think Dran-O) squirted up the urethra...)Medicine as we know it was in its infancy. Psychiatric medicine was unknown. You so do NOT want to be a time traveler, you would dislike it intensely.
Brenda, have you checked out some of the ways women were treated for "hysteria?"Early vibrators.
I'm betting there were quite a few docs who really enjoyed treating their patients . . .
For the duration of the story, yes, but after a point the woulda/coulda/shoulda can start making you crazy ;-)We go to their world, we can't bring them into ours. It kills them.
Renee wrote: "For the duration of the story, yes, but after a point the woulda/coulda/shoulda can start making you crazy ;-)We go to their world, we can't bring them into ours. It kills them."
But picky me doesn't have this "are you kidding me" problem with "pride and prejudice" and "gone with the wind". Odd. :p
Funny how that can happen sometimes :DI'd usually rather go into their world though. Anywhere but mine!
Renee wrote: "Funny how that can happen sometimes :DI'd usually rather go into their world though. Anywhere but mine!"
@Renee - I hear you. I love escaping into a good book. It's like therapy sometimes.
Definitely. Sometimes its sanity. Or survival, lol.
Well, I love to theorize and the "what if"s, as if the characters were real. I think it's only with a very well written story that you can do this. That doesn't mean I lose my grip on what's real, but it's fun for me to do it.
Laura wrote: "Well, I love to theorize and the "what if"s, as if the characters were real. I think it's only with a very well written story that you can do this. That doesn't mean I lose my grip on what's real, but it's fun for me to do it. "Same here lol.
I just had one of those *duh/facepalm* moments . . . That's how fanfiction was born.Not a bad thing. It's a great creative outlet and wonderful ground for Someday writers to hone their skills and creativity. It probably also provides a secure, comfortable place to do those things. :-)
Renee wrote: "It's a great creative outlet and wonderful ground for Someday writers to hone their skills and creativity.I had never thought about that. But this is so true. If you are aspiring to be a good writer, it's good to see how different readers interpret the text and may give you important clues about how to describe situations of characters. Interesting!
Oh, and I had missed your comment about the vibrators (the French did it, I think) and I have to say, I would love to see some essay about this contrast between the strict "asexual" morality of the times versus the idea that what a woman needs for sanity is an orgasm. That should be fascinating for me to read.Sorry to the OP, I went soooo off topic!
He had loved and respected her at one point. His care for her would mean he couldn't expose her to the dreadful institutions that asylums were in those days.
@Laura, Renee and SandyI agree with all three of you amazing women that theorizing is not only fun but I think healthy and intellectually challenging to a text. I have a really hard time not putting presentism into the texts that I read, especially if they hit a little close to home.
It's kind of funny that we will forgive a piece of fiction with the "consider the times" statement, but we are more apt to condemn historical figures without the benefit of that same ideology. I'm not coming out for "consider the time"-ism, just saying that it's interesting.
I'm only half way through my MA in history (it's my second MA and therefor it's the one I'm doing for fun not career) but I'm noticing a trend in historiography that present historians are less and less inclined to forgive the sins of past historians (forgetting the actors in history and focusing on the data collectors).
It's interesting. Sorry to go off on a weird tangent there, but you are all nice ladies and will forgive me. :)
It's not a weird tangent.Or maybe I think that because I agree completely. :D
I don't believe we can isolate or negate any of the ingredients that make up life, and then there's motive. Thomas Jefferson is a good example of that.
EDIT: And speaking of motive, I've wondered if moderns do that, demonize past humans by dismissing the times and social mores they were living in, denigrating greatness to mitigate their own inadequacies.
Annemarie wrote: "present historians are less and less inclined to forgive the sins of past historians"Also past historians had a different mindset than present or more recent historians. Judgment changes with times, cultures and even the age of the historian, who will probably feel differently about a certain issue/person at the beginning or at the end of their career. And the same goes for readers! I have re-read several books through my life, and my feelings changed with time, depending on the book and the issue that I was reading about.
I'd go back to the Arthur Conan Doyle example. When I read it as a child, I was too focused on the mysteries and fully fascinated with Sherlock Holmes, plus the little or no knowledge that I had about certain social matters, I missed a lot of the misogynistic and frankly racist remarks contained in the stories. I read it for the last time last year, and I couldn't believe that I hadn't seen it before. Yet, even from my new and "more critical" point of view, I was able to enjoy the same parts that I enjoyed before. When I got to a racist comment, I just shook my head and sighed "Oh, Conan Doyle...".
I haven't forgiven him for writing those things and I don't respect his views (or how he always despised his Holmes stories), but I still loved the plots and characters. As I said before, I admire more the authors who had more "progressive" thoughts in spite of their times.
It can get even twitchier when you're living in a different time and writing about a time in the past without sermonizing or passing judgment. Perspective gets lost. The expectation is to pass judgment and if you don't you must be tacitly agreeing. I've experienced that on a limited, but surprising basis in my small crit group. My novel is set in the early 1970s, right before the ending of the Viet Nam draft, not so long ago and everyone in the group lived through that era, all but one other were adults during the time. A couple of them can't fathom why I haven't made the portrayals of the sexual freedom (they refer to it as deviation, lol) condemnatory. Why I haven't "cleaned up" my main characters. And then all of them ask me how I got it so right /facepalm
Maybe it all goes back to being the responsibility of the reader to come to his/her own understanding of time and literature and the story as a liquid examination of humanity and its behaviors.
I do believe it is the responsibility of the writer to be true to the story. Perhaps that is what makes stories like Jane Eyre speak to us many generations and social revolutions later.
There are an enormous number of retellings of JANE EYRE -- somewhere around here is a thread.
What Renee says is interesting. Nonetheless, sometimes an author may choose to pass harsh judgments on the way society works/worked in the context that they're writing. An example could be Tess of the D'Urbervilles, where Hardy makes it very clear what he thinks of the Victorian society and you can almost see him giving the middle finger to those codes of morality. In your case, you leave it to the reader to form their own idea, while Hardy wanted the readers to end up thinking like he did. I think both options are valid, depending on what you want.
Laura wrote: "What Renee says is interesting. Nonetheless, sometimes an author may choose to pass harsh judgments on the way society works/worked in the context that they're writing. An example could be Tess of ...while Hardy wanted the readers to end up thinking like he did. I think both options are valid, depending on what you want."Hardy's option is very difficult to pull off, at least to a contemporary (to the work) reader. It's too easy for the story to become (perceived as) merely a vehicle for preaching. A few masters have pulled it off, but I've wondered how often those works were rejected by the readers of their time. One of these days I'll be overcome my sloth and research that. ;-)
Jean Rhyss wrote a novel called Wide Sargasso Sea which is meant to be a prequel to Jane Eyre. It talks about Bertha and her previous life of the island, unstable childhood, marriage to Rochester, and then her being locked up at Thornfield. If you read it, you will actually feel really bad for her. I know it completely changed my perspective on how I view Rochester.
But in general, he should not have locked her up. (This was my opinion even before reading Wide Sargasso Sea). It's inhumane to lock anyone up like they're an animal even if they are crazy in the head.
Su wrote: "But in general, he should not have locked her up. (This was my opinion even before reading Wide Sargasso Sea). It's inhumane to lock anyone up like their an animal even if they are crazy in the head. "That's what I have been thinking. :)
Annemarie wrote: I'm only half way through my MA in history (it's my second MA and therefor it's the one I'm doing for fun not career) but I'm noticing a trend in historiography that present historians are less and less inclined to forgive the sins of past historians (forgetting the actors in history and focusing on the data collectors)."Amazing, Annemarie. Thanks for sharing your findings. ;)
Brooklyn wrote: "I agree with the theory that asylums were terrible places back then. I believe the actual setting of the book is just after the regency, and before the Victorian era. If so, NOT putting her in an a..."Man, this thread is really educational, thanks everyone!
A mental asylum back then was much worse than a prison. I guess he just didnt want to subject her to that.
gertt wrote: "How far have we really come when people still refer to mentally challenged individuals as 'crazy in the head'?The Bertha Charlotte Bronte created in Jane Eyre inherited a progressive mental illness and was a danger to others...that was made apparent. If Rochester had not 'locked Bertha up' who would have prevented her from harming the people around her? Could a violent woman, so deranged that she paced the room on all fours, live safely among others?
The Rochester and Bertha created by Charlotte Bronte is obviously not the same Rochester and Bertha in Jean Rhys version of the story. Therefore, they need to be judged as different people from different stories.
"
No, Bertha could not safely live among others on her own and without restraint, but I think the point is that she certainly could have with (adequate) supervision and care. Even if we focus the discussion on what type of "care" was available during those times, Bertha was not receiving it. Clearly, a lax maid with a penchant for the bottle was not adequate supervision and care for her. I suspect that what some people are saying is that Rochester did more than just lock her away. He never let her out and deceptively went to great lengths to hide her existence from others and that in and of itself is very cruel and inhumane.
gertt wrote: "but locking family members with deformities, both mental and physical, was common for the time period."I'm not too sure about it. But how do you know?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I reckon if there were no racist and misogynistic descriptions and depictions, you would love the stories more? :)